<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hardware on Evan Hoffman</title><link>https://evan.wtf/tags/hardware/</link><description>Recent content in Hardware on Evan Hoffman</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><copyright>Evan Hoffman</copyright><lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:05:07 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://evan.wtf/tags/hardware/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>XFS write speeds: software RAID 0/5/6 across 45 spindles</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2013/01/02/xfs-write-speeds-software-raid-056-across-45-spindles/</link><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:05:07 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2013/01/02/xfs-write-speeds-software-raid-056-across-45-spindles/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;We&amp;rsquo;re currently building a new storage server to store low-priority data (tertiary backups, etc). One of the requirements for the project is that it needs to be on cheap storage (as opposed to expensive enterprise SAN/NAS). After some research we decided to build a &lt;a href="http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/"&gt;Backblaze pod&lt;/a&gt;. Backblaze used 3TB Hitachi drives in their system, but the ones they listed in their blog post are discontinued and the reviews for all other 3TB+ drives were terrible, so we went with &lt;a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245"&gt;Samsung ST2000DL004&lt;/a&gt; 2TB 7200 RPM drives. Like Backblaze, we&amp;rsquo;re going with software raid, but I figured a good first step would be to figure out what RAID level we want to use, and if we want to use the mdadm/LVM mish-mosh Backblaze uses, or find something simpler. For my testing I created a RAID6 of all 45 drives and created a single XFS volume (XFS&amp;rsquo;s size limit is ~8 exabytes vs ext4&amp;rsquo;s 16TB). Ext4 may present some performance advantages, but the management overhead is probably not worth it in our case.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Problems with PostgreSQL 9.0 on CentOS 6.3 with a 2.6.32-series kernel</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2012/09/25/problems-with-postgresql-9-0-on-centos-6-3-with-a-2-6-32-series-kernel/</link><pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:20:36 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2012/09/25/problems-with-postgresql-9-0-on-centos-6-3-with-a-2-6-32-series-kernel/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: this is cross-posted from the &lt;a href="http://www.yodletechblog.com/post/problems-with-postgresql-9.0-on-centos-6.3-with-a-2.6.32-series-kernel/"&gt;Yodle Tech Blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&#10;We recently migrated our Postgres database to a significantly more powerful machine. While our existing server was doing okay load-wise, we were approaching 90% full on its Postgres volume. We&amp;rsquo;d also recently acquired an awesome new PureStorage SSD-based SAN and were excited to move our database onto it. For comparison, here are the the specs for the two systems:&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;table&gt;&#10;&#9;&lt;thead&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;th&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;th&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;th&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&lt;/thead&gt;&#10;&#9;&lt;tbody&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;Old server&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;New server&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;Nickname&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;DB1&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;DB2&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;CPU&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;2x 6-core &lt;a href="http://ark.intel.com/products/52576/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5690-%2812M-Cache-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI%29"&gt;Xeon X5690&lt;/a&gt; CPUs at 3.47GHz&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;2x 8-core &lt;a href="http://ark.intel.com/products/64596/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2690-%2820M-Cache-2_90-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI%29"&gt;E5-2690&lt;/a&gt; CPUs at 2.90 GHz&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;Memory&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;96 GB 1333 MHz&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;128 GB 1600 MHz&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;Storage&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;- Dell PERC H800 SAS HBA - Dell MD1220 drive enclosure - 24x 15k RPM SAS drives configured in RAID 10&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;- QLogic QLE2562 dual-port 8 Gbit FC HBA - PureStorage SSD-based SAN&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;OS&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;CentOS 5.6 x86_64&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;CentOS 6.3 x86_64&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;Kernel&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;2.6.18-238.9.1.el5&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;td&gt;2.6.32-279.2.1.el6.x86_64&lt;/td&gt;&#10;&#9;&#9;&#9;&lt;/tr&gt;&#10;&#9;&lt;/tbody&gt;&#10;&lt;/table&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;As you can probably guess, moving from spinning disk onto SSD was the centerpiece of the upgrade. We&amp;rsquo;d tested the PureStorage system pretty extensively and used it in some secondary databases and seen some amazing improvements. We were excited to see how it would handle our production workload.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>